idigi

The 35L could be a little sharper in the corners, and I'd really like weather sealing (and be willing to pay for it!).

Just curious: what is weather sealing for on 35L? Do you photograph with your Canon bodies in rain, snow or in sand that current 35L cannot deal with? Or is weather sealing more for peace of mind and primarily for general dust issues?

The 35L could be a little sharper in the corners, and I'd really like weather sealing (and be willing to pay for it!).

Just curious: what is weather sealing for on 35L? Do you photograph with your Canon bodies in rain, snow or in sand that current 35L cannot deal with? Or is weather sealing more for peace of mind and primarily for general dust issues?

I do shoot in the rain and snow with my 7D and weather-sealed lenses. Could the current 35L deal with that? I don't know...and I don't plan to take it out in the rain and test to the point of failure.

Honestly, I use the 35L most frequently on my 5DII for outdoor shooting at night, where the 7D's noise at high ISO would be a problem. So how useful would a sealed 35L be for me today? I've had occasions where I wanted to go out and shoot on a rainy night, but skipped it. Since lenses should significantly outlast bodies, I'm planning for the future, where a 1-series body is something I'll likely have.

And wasn't there some rumor about the 50 1.4 II being an L series lens?

I try to keep this list as objective as possible but I highly doubt this one. I think there is only one mention regarding this and it had to do with the debunked rumor about Canon getting rid of the non-L EF-lenses. I believe there is a market for an upgraded consumer grade 50 1.4. I also believe that Canon can improve on and keep the 50mm L-series as a 1.2.

I wouldn't be so sure. Canon has developed a sub-L build quality with the L label (100mm f/2.8L MACRO). Nikon has gotten away from their "non-L" style lenses and Canon is doing the same. If you want an inexpensive lens, buy an inexpensive camera that takes EF-S, a line that will continue to build. I would be shocked if any prime lens is unveiled that is not at least an 'L' in name.

Canon has developed a sub-L build quality with the L label (100mm f/2.8L MACRO).

How is the build quality of the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS 'sub-L'? Mine feels quite solid, definitely a step up from my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The 100L Macro is weather-sealed, many of my other L lenses are not. If you think it's 'sub-L' because the barrel is 'engineering plastic', well, most black L lens barrels are the same material.

How and when was the idea that Canon is done with non-L EF lenses debunked? The only non-L EF lens released since the launch of the first Canon APS-C camera was the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and it's pretty well known that the cost savings from EF-S telephoto lenses are a diminishing return. There hasn't been a new non-L EF prime lens since well before the D30.

Canon has developed a sub-L build quality with the L label (100mm f/2.8L MACRO).

How is the build quality of the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS 'sub-L'? Mine feels quite solid, definitely a step up from my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The 100L Macro is weather-sealed, many of my other L lenses are not. If you think it's 'sub-L' because the barrel is 'engineering plastic', well, most black L lens barrels are the same material.

How and when was the idea that Canon is done with non-L EF lenses debunked? The only non-L EF lens released since the launch of the first Canon APS-C camera was the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and it's pretty well known that the cost savings from EF-S telephoto lenses are a diminishing return. There hasn't been a new non-L EF prime lens since well before the D30.

Canon has developed a sub-L build quality with the L label (100mm f/2.8L MACRO).

How is the build quality of the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS 'sub-L'? Mine feels quite solid, definitely a step up from my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The 100L Macro is weather-sealed, many of my other L lenses are not. If you think it's 'sub-L' because the barrel is 'engineering plastic', well, most black L lens barrels are the same material.

How and when was the idea that Canon is done with non-L EF lenses debunked? The only non-L EF lens released since the launch of the first Canon APS-C camera was the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and it's pretty well known that the cost savings from EF-S telephoto lenses are a diminishing return. There hasn't been a new non-L EF prime lens since well before the D30.

I'm curious to hear how the 100L is sub L quality too.

It's funny how something can be perceived as "cheap", or as stated above, "sub L" quality based on build material and weight alone. The truth is, as 95% of the photographers on this site will tell you, a lens doesn't gain it's classification into the "L" series based on build quality alone. Otherwise you could take the components from a 18-55 f/4.5-5.6 and assemble it within a 2lbs. weather sealed housing, and call it an "L"....

In my opinion, its the physics behind the optics and the image that it can produce in combination with rigidity and build quality that classifies the lens. Don't get me wrong... the build quality is most definitely important in a L - series lens, being their professional line and all. I just find that what they did with the 100mm 2.8L is perfectly adequate.Can you drop it from 5ft onto concrete and still use the lens? Probably not, and i'm most certainly not willing to test that. BUT - it does have some nice weather sealing that has held up to light/moderate rain on my 7D just fine, and that in combination with the fantastic images I can capture classify it as an "L- Series" lens for me.

Plastic has improved shock absorbing qualities over metal, so I'd not be surprised if it actually did well in that respect. It doesn't conduct heat as readily either, which is important too (i.e. preventing fogging and sweating).

This whole "metal versus polycarbonate" debate reminds me of people talking about handguns. "I wouldn't buy one of the new plastic guns..." but of course they're used everywhere, and lighter too.